Bill Maher, Christains have neurological disorder

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Politically incorrect? His show is political correctness. He does not stand for one thing that all journalists do not support. He offends because he is unable to articulate logical arguments. I offend because....well it is my job and I can articulate any conservative argument with resorting to slamming. He brings on the show mental midgets to defend conservative values. I guess that is fair because the other side by definition must be mental......Their only qualification, must have been on television. What a litmus test for intellect?

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]

He just offends because he is on the other side, and occaisionally funny. Some people forget that his main occupation is humor. Pick up his last book. You can tell right away. But I do hope you know that he is a comedian.

Also, you can say that about any show with an agenda. O'Reilly has "activists" that come on to his show for him to debate with.

OReilly does not claim differently either. He is ok as is Sean but Savage now there is no restraint.

I gotta disagree with the last sentence. O'Reilly is great...as is Savage...Hannity is a little yip yip lap dog. He is perhaps the biggest hypocrit in political opinion today. I got a major problem with the guy. Hannity to me is your Bill Maher.

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest I offend because....well it is my job and I can articulate any conservative argument with resorting to slamming.

You have employment in the field of offending? There aren't too many vocations like that unless you're a radio shock jock. Maybe I read that wrong.

Originally posted by OXmanK
I gotta disagree with the last sentence. O'Reilly is great...as is Savage...Hannity is a little yip yip lap dog. He is perhaps the biggest hypocrit in political opinion today. I got a major problem with the guy. Hannity to me is your Bill Maher.

I like Hannity; why do you think he's a hypocrite?

[edit on 19-2-2005 by Herman]

Originally posted by HermanI like Hannity; why do you think he's a hypocrite?

Simple - They hate any God fearing country loving American......Hannity fits it to the tee........

Bill Maher, imo, was both correct and incorrect in his statements. I think theism is quite normal with respect to percentage of theists in the human gene pool; some geneticists have claimed to discover a 'god gene' that makes humans more inclined to believe in a God. I think, by implication, if anyone has a disorder it would be the atheist (this is coming from an atheist).

On the other hand, I agree entirely that 9/11 was a "faith based initiative." You may disagree with the faith that it was done for, but nevertheless, all evidence points to these and other actions are done for one's rendering of a God. Theism has its dangerous side as well as its helpful side. Moreover, it is probably the case the various amendments in the united states with respect to homosexual marriage were probably religiously decided by many of the people that voted. Not that this is a bad thing; the moral offense of murder is probably religiously induced as well -- as aristotle said, 'all just laws have a basis in morality' (paraphrased).

Well put dog.

I think that God gene is real.

Sometimes I can be praying and I get this extreme euphoric feeling. No I have not done illegal drugs in years but trust me a do know extreme euphoria. I just can not explain it. The shrinks claim it is hypomania. I just do not know??? What do you think dog?

By the way if you aint got the gene, you aint got it (strong TN accent)

Reaganwasourgreatest,

Possibly. People who pray often claim to recieve an answer in some form or another (why else would one continue to pray?). Perhaps if there is a gene that makes it more or less likely for one to believe in God then it isn't just my failure to look for an answer, but rather a genetically induced failure in my ability to percieve the answer.

On the other hand, this may put a damper on christian apologetics: according to free-will, we have the choice to accept God or not -- however, for anyone lacking the 'god gene,' that choice may not even be presented to them. Moreover, it is implied that God allows children to be born without or with a disabled 'god gene' thus rendering them atheistic without any hope of salvation.


One could easily wonder where God would stand on the nature vs. nurture debate.

As for my thoughts, I think mankind is a bit special: We can naturally hate salad, yet still eat it. We can be inclined towards self preservation, yet still kill ourselves. We can be thirsty, yet not drink. We can consider ourselves homosexual, yet still have heterosexual sex. We can claim to hate, yet force ourselves to love. To me, all of these suggest that genetics and other factors only play as a background music to our decision making process -- we, in the end, decide who we are, what we do, and what we will be.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by radardog]

Not to preach, for it that would be pointless.

When I heard your comment this popped into my mind



Matt 21:43-44
43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
NIV



Luke 19:11-26
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. '
Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17 "'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25 "'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
NIV


I hope this does not apply. Thanks anyway for your thoughtful response. Keep up the input, I appreciate your incite.

I happen to believe all life forms are genetically coded to acknowlege their creater. If one exists would he not sign his work?




1 Tim 2:3-5
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
NIV

Mark 16:15-16
15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
NIV


Seems rather silly to preach to grass but I follow

Well no more scripture, i will leave that for elsewhere

I wish ats could develop a religious-only site where all the hypocrits couyld converge on themselves and bore each other to death. Ann all religious bable would be routed there.
This guy hold Bill O'reilly in such high esteem--Don't let him near your wife or daughter.

Ed, pull your head out of your ass...

I find him to be one after him and Colmes had Terry McAullife(sp?) on the show. Then, Terry made some off-handed comment about Cheney and not being on enough meds. Cheney made some rather poor taste comments as well, prior. But that's not the point of the argument. The point is at the end of the interview. At the end, Sean was repeatedly telling Terry to apologize for those comments. Yet, he laughs and yucks it up after making comments like that about lefties. That IS hypocrisy. It's not that I fear or hate...how did that go..."any God fearing country loving Americans". I don't care about that...I just call what I see.

Bill is a smart guy and funny too. He has done well for himself. But being a Christian is a choose that did not come easy for me.

First of all, the longer I live the more I realize I don't know. Life is a bit more complicated than I thought it would be when I was in my 20/30's. I AM a Christian, by that I mean I have chosen to believe that I am imperfect and needed His intervention. I have come to this conclusion primarily upon LOGIC, not faith. Faith is one of those enigma's in today's vocabulary that has lost it's meaning or has been interpreted differently by so many. My journey to this conclusion has a few factors that I will share with the forum/thread.

Point 1

Again before I go on I will try and be LOGIC-based and not bring in a bunch of Christian-eze mumbo jumbo.

Point 1

Remember Back to the Future and the Delorian (sp?) Imagine if you were Micheal J Fox and some one asked you to go to five (only 5) different time zones/geographical areas and meet one person in each time zone/area and ask them, "please write a book about God, I'll be back in 5 years to collect it."

Five years later you went and picked up the five books. Logically speaking what are the chances those five books would agree? What are the chances those five books would build upon one another? What are the chances you could make any semblance out of them...to live by or the like? Snowballs in your know where, right?

Different people! Different cultures! Difference Time frames! Different Premises! Different World view! etc etc...

Logically speaking you would have five unconnected books with five different perspectives, right?

Well, the Bible (torah, prophets, gospels, epistles, revelation) are not 5 books by five authors, but66 books by 40 authors...who did not know one another, did not live in the same town, did not live in the same time line...authors were of every occupation and financial status........yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story. Doesn't prove it God's Word yet though...just something that might warrant another look.

Point 2

Here's an undisputable fact (I believe at least after examining) Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God, his followers claimed He claimed to be God...and...non Christian journalist (such as Josephus) claimed He claimed he was God. Doesn't appear here to be different agendas going on. He said it, His followers said He said it, third parties said He said it and even his enemies said He said it (Sanhedrin, Pharisies, etc)

SO...with all that said...we have only two LOGICAL outcomes. No religious double-talk here) Either you BELIEVE or you REJECT. Really no other options right? If you believe, then to you HE IS LORD. If you REJECT there are really only two options for you.

1) JC knew he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LIAR

2) JC didn't know he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LUNATIC.

That's the only three logical outcomes...LIAR, LUNATIC of LORD. There is no room for him being a good guy and all, no room for him being a prophet as every other religion on the face of the earth calls him. Because prophets don't lie and they are not usually in psych wards.

Point 3

Most direct followers were killed for believing in JC. If they had stole his body and the romans excused, at least one of them would have squilled just before their execution right? I would have...but NO-All these ordinary folks were willing to die for what they saw...WOW!


I have much more reasons why I choose now to believe, that I'll share later. hope this creates some more interesting discussions. Thanks for the opportunity guys!

Old Thinker
Phillipians 1:3

OldThinker,

I don't intend to make this a religious discussion, but I think your reasoning is flawed.

With respect to the first point, the christian religion and tradition were typically passed on primarily by word of mouth and a few times by text in early history (that we know of). It is not an amazing feat that we having an evolving text whose parts are related. Moreover, they are selectively related; the 66 books you speak of are only a few of the hundreds that existed (some still exist and are under heavy debate -- a famous yet debated one is the 'gospel of Thomas') -- just not all of them were canonized by a church vote. While there are a few innerrantist in the house, it is generally accepted in theological schools that there are a few discrepencies between authors in some cases. That is, not all of their testimoney necessarily match 100%.

With respect to the second point, Jesus never said anything close to, "I am God," but rather implied it through many of his statements. "I have been here forever (I am the alpha and Omega..)" would easily have been interpreted as meaning, "I am God" to the jews. My point about this isn't really strong, but rather a technicality. God, in general, does have different "agendas" going on through history and can be marked by the change in covenants. His rules change for people depending where and when you are. Josephus, in some parts, are known to be a forgery from the church. I can give you academia links and/or articles if you are interested in the accusations of forgery.

Second, you have a black and white fallacy: The two logical outcomes are this -- Either what he said is true, or what he said is false. Niether of which implies a rejection of his claims. i.e. What he said could be true, but I may have no personal evidence to believe that is true. Or likewise, what he said may have actually been false, but you have no personal evidence to believe what he said was false. This is an old argument -- it comes from a well know once-atheist-now-christian author who made the same mistake you are making.

Liar-Lunatic-Lord? What about a real man who had a story made up about him using his name? You know it is an honest possibility and I would like you to entertain it.


With respect to point 3,

Many religions have martyrs -- I don't think that implies the truth of one religion over another. Hell, people even martyr themselves for political systems. People are strange.

Originally posted by OXmanK
Ed, pull your head out of your ass...

I find him to be one after him and Colmes had Terry McAullife(sp?) on the show. Then, Terry made some off-handed comment about Cheney and not being on enough meds. Cheney made some rather poor taste comments as well, prior. But that's not the point of the argument. The point is at the end of the interview. At the end, Sean was repeatedly telling Terry to apologize for those comments. Yet, he laughs and yucks it up after making comments like that about lefties. That IS hypocrisy. It's not that I fear or hate...how did that go..."any God fearing country loving Americans". I don't care about that...I just call what I see.

I saw that episode, and Hannity only really asked him 1 or 2 times at the end of the show. He asked him that because Dick Cheney is the Vice President of the U.S, not because he's a republican.

I believe it was at least 3 times he told him. But you are missing the point of this. He makes the same type of cracks about Democratic leaders but tells people to apologize when someone else makes a wise ass remark about his favored leaders. The hypocrisy IS NOT debatable. The only thing left to say is that you do not care about it or that it isn't that big of a deal.

Dog, I think you may have missed his point.

What some of us religious lunatics get so irritated is when people try to placate to us by saying stuff like....Jesus, good person cared about the poor. Jesus said differently...."The poor you will always have" He did not once attack slavery. He told slaves to be the best slaves to honor their God. I really hate the song, "Oh what a friend we have in Jesus" He ain't my friend, he is my God.

We, fools for Christ, believe that he is our creator. It is to our creator we bow down and worship, not his ideas. I do not understand much of what is written. I have to go on faith that what is is correct and therefore that is our standard for everything. I do not worship some chump demigod that can not influence or change history. Maintaining the integrity of one single Bible doe not seem to me difficult for someone that said let there be....and it was.

Wow, I finally found something to agree with Kazi on. Sorry, I did not mean for this to become a religious thread.

Bill Maher just does not believe and thinks we Christians are nuts because we do. Maybe we all are but stupid, what he really thinks we are is way out there. Newton, Einstein, Da Vinci.........shall I go on? Go ahead throw Hocking at me. He is not dead yet and people are praying for him.

Reaganwasourgreatest,

I possibly did miss his point. I agree with you: being theist or atheist does not make one stupid, or less intelligent. Moreover, while many of my atheistic friends will debate me for days about this, I think I can argue relatively well that all people (including atheists) operate on a sense of faith. I won't post my arguments on that, but if anyone is interested, u2u me.

I liked Bill's Religious movie I felt it was right on point and funny how when he would back people into a corner with scripture and facts their only response was what if your wrong that made me laugh because it is so typical. Oh and the the guy that though a certain substance was religious I thought that was funny as well.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Buddyweiser]